Even by the standards of the Daily Beast/Newsweek/Whatever, there’s a remarkably silly and poorly argued piece of emotionalism masquerading as journalism by one Jamelle Bouie, in which our intrepid reporter sees a bunch of guns and freaks out:

For years, police officers in North Carolina had a choice when it came to confiscated guns. They could use them for law enforcement purposes—training, testing, examining—or they could destroy them.

But a new law passed by Republican lawmakers in the state changes that. Police officers can still use confiscated guns, but as of this week, they can’t destroy them. Instead, if a department wants to get rid of a gun, it has to sell it or auction it. Effectively, men and women who once worked to keep guns off of the streets must now moonlight as gun dealers.

The headline says it all: Gun Fanatics Score Big Victory in North Carolina. Here’s the gist of the argument:

It’s a fanaticism that hints at something elemental. It’s one thing to support and defend gun rights, which through the years have become an integral part of American identity. It’s something else entirely to oppose the destruction of guns used to commit violence and harm innocent people.

You read that right: the guns themselves committed violence and harmed innocent people, and therefore need to be destroyed before they can wound and kill again.

Even by the standards of leftist argument, this is remarkably stupid, except that in the world of magical thinking they inhabit, inanimate objects either have minds of their own, or they can exercise strange mind-control over helpless liberals and make them do crazy things. Like this guy:

Must… kill… the… Queen!

But let’s take Bouie’s argument one step farther — and apply it to the left’s fervently held belief about the sacrament of abortion. Which is to say that slightest infringement of the abortion “rights” invented by the Supreme Court during one of its periodic brain farts is the slippery slope leading to no abortion at all:

While non–gun advocates may strain to see the link between prohibiting the destruction of guns and defending the Second Amendment, it makes sense when you consider the attitude of the NRA and its supporters: any encroachment on gun rights—defined as the right to own any firearm, at any time—is a threat to all gun rights.

So what’s the difference? Well, one might be that the Second Amendment is actually part of the Constitution — and “shall not be infringed” seems fairly clear enough — and Roe v. Wade is a 1973 decision that — like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson – eventually will be overturned, most likely on Tenth Amendment grounds. Despite the fear-mongering from the absolutist Left, this would mean that abortion would still be legal nationwide, but would return the contentious and destructive issue to the states for individual legislative solutions.

The larger question for me, though, remains: what’s it to the “non-gun advocates” — who by self-definition don’t know and don’t want to know a thing about firearms, except that they frighten them — what happens to confiscated firearms in North Carolina or anywhere else? I thought the Left was in favor of recycling. But, then, a skittish busybody’s work is never done, is it?

By the way, here’s the super-scary picture from the Beast story that vividly illustrates the threat from confiscated but still-functioning firearms. Might be some bargains here, once you tame their murderous impulses:

Isn't that the simplistic if/then logic implied within their argument? It's not twisting words, its following their "thoughts" to their logical conclusion.

They are upset because confiscated firearms, i.e., those that have been involved in a crime, are being re-sold. Their argument: because guns were used, then those guns must be destroyed. Ergo, guns that have not killed people need not be destroyed. So, destruction of firearms is contingent upon the actions of those firearms. Conclusion: the guns that have killed must be punished, lest they kill again.

"It’s something else entirely to oppose the destruction of guns used to commit violence and harm innocent people."

Uhm, Michael, you're doing something the gun-grabbers usually do; twisting words to fit their arguments. Nowhere does Bouie imply the guns themselves harmed people, she says they were "used" to commit violence. "Used", as in utilizing a tool or implement to achieve an end. This comports with the gun advocates often-heard claim that guns are just tools, and can't, of their own volition, harm anyone.

It's bad enough when the gun-grabbers, use magical thinking, and put words in people's mouths, but please, let's not do it ourselves

Does Jamelle Bouie carte as much about actually punishing those who commit violent crimes, whether with guns or not, with long FIXED prison sentences or is she fixated on the tools used in their crime?

The part that anti-gun rights crowd don't get, because they can't be bothered to learn, is that most guns recovered by police haven't been "involved in an act of violence" in any way that can be shown. Much like ATF traces, all that can said about these guns is they ended up in the hands of police.

Stolen car recovered with gun in it? It's on the table. Gun found in investigation of other crime and seized? On the table. Gun turned in by widow? On the table. Gun found walking in the woods that fell out of a holster then turned in? On the table.

Even the fact that a gun is found in the possession of a violent criminal doesn't mean that particular gun has any direct relation to a violent crime.

In any event the guns are going to licensed dealers, who will then only sell them with a background check. I thought that's what the anti-gun folks said they wanted?

C'mon,Mike.When you're right,you don't need to resort to bullsh*t.She said,per your quotes,"...of guns USED to commit violence..."(my caps.,of course).She did not imply or say the guns themselves were responsible.Quite the contrary.For once,a firearmophobe(hey,it sounds no more stupid than"homophobe"or"islamophobe") wasn't COMPLETELY out to lunch.Putting words into peoples' mouths is a shameful trick of the left.Let them keep it-we don't need it.

I actually see a few guns in that picture that would make nice little projects to tinker with in the coming winter months! Smith & Wesson always makes decent revolvers.

More seriously though, I live in NC and remember a couple of decades ago attending a gun auction the local sheriff's department conducted. Picked up a fun little .410 shotgun for pocket money.

Those guns were, like I suspect most will be, the result of confiscations related to breaking various rules regarding outdoor activities like hunting or fishing.

Get busted with a doe out of season - they can confiscate your truck, the boat you have on a trailer behind it, and everything inside the truck.

This would include that nice brand new Winchester Model 70 with the Leopold scope.

If you are high bidder at the auction, you pick up a nice hunting rifle package that could have cost one or two thousand dollars to put together for WAYYYYY less money.

Oh, and you also get to bid on the late model truck that was confiscated too! Yeah, the guy who was busted still has to make payments to the bank but if you win you get to drive around in a paid for vehicle that is yours legally free and clear.

Of course as we saw in the post Katrina gun grab by NOLA law enforcement the really nice stuff confiscated never seems to surface again. Sure you may have a shot at a cheap shotgun, but that nicely equipped hunting rifle will never be seen by the public unless you happen to look for what some hunter cop is using during the season.

In medieval times the superstitious attribution of supernatural powers to inanimate things was common. Often a special sword was thought to have the power to confer superhuman abilities to its owner. Modern Leftists seem to retain remnants of medieval thinking, at least when it serves their purpose.

I'm a member of the NRA, too, and I can verify that is NOT the NRA's position.

But, it is the strategy of the Democrat Party gun-grabbers to keep harassing legitimate gun owners until it is such a burden to legally own a gun, that hardly anyone does. Then they plan on banning ALL private gun ownership. Several leading gun-grabbers have publicly stated this position.

So it would not be surprising if gun owners refused to compromise with the gun-grabbers, and took a hard-nosed position on gun laws.

Well, all that said, I'd love to have a 105. If nothing else, to annoy my Liberal neighbors. But I live in Commiefornia and soon even marshmallows will be banned. No thanks to the leftist loons in Sacramento.